This post is somewhat a Part II to Tony Newbill’s defense of Ranchers and Farmers as an explanation or reason that these land owners are upset with Government appropriation of land that has been in the traditional usage in the public domain or even stolen from private ownership.
Tony Newbill Comment to “More on why we are where we are with Tyranny Today in America”
Understanding what we are up against by reading the First Link PLAYING OUTSIDE THE RULES. Read the back and forth debate between Walley and Suckling … When you get done reading this back and forth, I would say that the ego of environmentalism has become more important than the realities of what sustainability means and the courts need to be asked to consider this line of thought when they are deciding on the use of resources going forward here!!!!!!
Kieran Suckling got his name from an Irish saint. Now he thinks he is one:
Hundreds, if not thousands, of public land ranchers, loggers and miners have had their livelihoods destroyed by the ultra-effective strategies of the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity (SWC). They move like a band of guerrilla insurgents in their battle for public lands. The old, dogmatic environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society have became so bureaucratic and public opinion driven, that they have become slow and cumbersome in their efforts. SWC moves rapidly because decision making is concentrated in the activists who founded the group, and they appear not to give a damn about public opinion or the lives of people affected.
Suckling describes his team as "incredibly driven and passionate about the work we do. We are creative and manic. We have not played by the general 'rules' of activism. Unpredictability, speed and creative action has made it very hard for extractive industries and the government to anticipate or respond to us. By keeping everyone, including ourselves, continually moving in new directions, we have been able to destabilize the status quo of subsidized logging, grazing, mining and urban sprawl.... Many groups are hampered by the fear of upsetting their congressional connections, their funders, the media, etc. While we feel the pull of such things, we daily remind ourselves that social change comes with social tension and that our job is to create that dynamic tension, regardless of the pressure of back-down or compromise."
Their "manic" guerrilla tactics have been efficient, damn efficient. The group's active litigation record-84 lawsuits in five years-on everything from waterways to woodlands to dams has attained national attention. The group says it has won 77 percent of final judgments. Suckling declares their success is built on what he describes as the two strongest forces of the environmental movement: science and law.
"The law says that the best possible science is to be used in managing our public lands," he says, "so we conduct our own scientific research to show that's not happening, then we litigate. It's an incredible amount of work, but with an honest judge you can shut down a billion-dollar development in a heartbeat."
Kieran's using "The force of the courts," has created untold suffering and distress for many westerners.
The effects of courtroom and backroom bargaining by the SWC deeply trouble New Mexico rancher, Hugh McKinney. "What knocked me off my lease was a backroom agreement between the Forest Service and SWC [what some call The Tucson Back-Alley Agreement] that excluded ranchers. The judge did not approve it; he would not sign it. The agreement affects you to the point that's all you talk about with friends and neighbors. It bothered me to the point that I have no spirit, no energy to plan for a future. They took my allotment with lies and I have no recourse to correct those lies. We were forced off our land, but the Forest Service called it volunteering to quit."
I asked Kieran's old professor, Pax, a hard question during the telephone interview. "What do you think of the pain, human suffering, the dismantling of rural communities created by Kieran's actions?"
The professor's indifferent answer was a revelation that brought Suckling's environmental philosophy back to its seed. "He doesn't see any other way to proceed in his work without disruption like that! He doesn't do it for the sake of disruption, but he is not going to stop his work simply because people are uncomfortable with it!"
I had asked Kieran similar questions in our Tucson meeting.
Walley: "What about those people you are putting off the land and out of work? What is your ethic and social responsibility to those humans?"
Suckling answered slowly and cautiously, choosing each word with care and sidestepping the question: "Our government and its corporate sponsors have created a system of subsidies that has to be abolished. They turned the lands into a commodity. We have to get public land users off this welfare system. It is not a simple thing to break those chains."
Walley: "But what about those people who are suffering during this change?"
Suckling: "As I say, it is not a simple thing. We have entire communities that have grown up in this system of land-based government subsides. To change that is not a painless thing."
Walley: "You, are creating rural refugees!"
Kieran's ego finally shows, his speech picks up speed and emphasis: "It's more than rural. I'm dealing with the Grand Canyon, Hoover Dam and Los Angeles. Thirteen million people are used to getting their water this way, I say that's great, but we are going to show them a different way to do it!"
Walley: "You are forcing change on society and you are aware of it?"
Suckling: "Yeah! Isn't that what an activist is! What do you think an activist is? We change society!"
Walley: "Can't you do this in a humane and gentle way?"
Suckling: "It is sad, but I don't hear you put that in a direct relationship to the effect on the land. I hear you talk about the pain of the people but I don't see you match that up with the pain of the species."
Walley (dumbfounded): "What?"
Suckling: "A loach minnow is more important, than say, Betty and Jim's ranch-a thousand times more important. I'm not against ranching, it is a job. My concern is the impact on the land."
Walley: "Ranchers across America and Australia are going to read this article Kieran. What would you say to them?"
Suckling: "The logging industry denied for years that logging damaged the land. Because they refused to acknowledge problems or change their operations, the came under tremendous public pressure, which led to a massive collapse of the industry on public lands. Thus far, the ranching industry is heading down the same path. Its obstacles will be far greater: many more species are threatened by grazing than by logging, the public is much more aware of environmental damage today than a decade ago, and activists are bringing skills and organizing abilities to the overgrazing issue which have been honed in the logging battles. Ranchers should take a long hard look at what happened with the logging industry. They should also take a long hard look at the reality of overgrazing on public lands. If the industry does not acknowledge and change, it won't exist on public land two decades from now. Ultimately it will be ranchers, not environmentalists, who determine whether public lands grazing will continue."
Walley: "Do you see a middle-ground with the ranching industry? Compromise? If so, what are the parameters you could work within?"
Suckling: "I sincerely believe that cattle ranching has done more damage to public lands in the Southwest than logging, mining, urban sprawl, or any other extractive use. While it is easy to see the scars of logging and sprawl, the denuding of groundcover, erosion of soils, and destruction of riparian vegetation is far more widespread. Numerous scientific studies confirm that species endangerment in the Southwest is more closely connected to grazing than any other single event. That said, I also have no personal dislike of cattle grazing. If cattle can be run on public lands and not destroy the environment, that's fine with me, but it is up to the ranching industry to change its practices and demonstrate public lands can be economically grazed without damaging the land. That is the forum of compromise. We have worked out a few projects with loggers because it has been demonstrated that small trees in thickets can be removed while benefiting the environment. The ranching industry needs to demonstrate the same. Happy talk about 'sustainability' is just talk. Extrapolations from private lands in different ecosystems to public lands are unconvincing. The parameters, then, have to take the form of demonstration."
…… And to point out a conception of Animal Racism with the way these Environmentalists are using Government laws to “Select Certain Species for Salvation over Others” and compare that to the concept of Human extinction under what is becoming obvious as an effort to engineer a die-off of humanity by locking up all the resources that humanity survives on. When do we see these same Environmentalists begin to Select themselves as the Threatened Species that needs a Law to protect their Existence????
What stands out as a Possible solution to bring balance back to what these Radicals are doing to human existence? Use the same tactics of lawsuits to sustain resources for humans that they have used for the species they have used as tools to lock up the resources away from Human access for Life!!!!! The Courts have NEVER been put in a situation to Decide if Human Life is More important than Animal Species. If Courts rule this way as far as making resources the topic of how to preserve Renewable usage for Human Life so that Human Life can then be what sustains Animal Life…. And the path Environmentalism is on will leave NO ONE Human Left to take care of the habitat that takes care of the Animal species. The Courts need to rule on this aspect of this effect going forward, starting with the Irrigation Water Lawsuit here in Central Oregon!!!!!!!!
Environmentalists and irrigators have differing opinions on how a court order being sought for changes in Deschutes River flows upstream of Bend would affect farms, ranches and other water users.
The Center for Biological Diversity and WaterWatch of Oregon filed for a preliminary injunction last week, requesting the Bureau of Reclamation and three irrigation districts in Central Oregon manage the river’s water differently. The irrigation districts named in the filing are the Central Oregon, North Unit and Tumalo.
The problem, says Noah Greenwald, endangered species director for the Center for Biological Diversity, is this leaves the Oregon spotted frog and other river animals with little water. He said the group, which is based in Arizona and has an office in Portland, wants to find a way for the amphibians and irrigators to coexist.
Currently the bureau keeps wintertime flows in the Deschutes River reduced in order to fill upstream reservoirs. Summertime flows are then higher to supply farmers, ranchers and other water users.
So if the court orders a change in how the Deschutes River is managed this spring, people who draw water from the district may face “abrupt and severe restrictions,” according to a news release last week from the Deschutes Basin Board of Control. The group represents eight irrigation districts.
… READ ENTIRETY (Frog lawsuit could change Deschutes River flows: Environmental groups, irrigators have differing views on court case; By Dylan J. Darling; The Bulletin; 2/14/16 12:01AM – updated 2/16/16 11:27AM)
The Opening arguments on the 22nd regarding our [Tony Newbill is from Oregon] Irrigation water lawsuit with Suckling needs to hear this concept. We need to ask the courts to consider the sustainability of habitat for animal species if the trend of creating an environment that humans go extinct is not balanced out here before it’s too late. The crisis of human extinction is met with the Chaos of those events unfolding, because if we get to this kind of a stage in food production the chaos will override the efforts to keep habitat sustained!!!!
I would say that the ego of environmentalism has become more important than the realities of what sustainability means and the courts need to be asked to consider this line of thought when they are deciding on the use of resources going forward here!!!!!!
And here is more on how we can see the Egotism that’s gone array from the reality that the Courts should not be influenced with:
[Blog Editor: The link above is a short backgrounder of Kieran Suckling. The last paragraph provides an interesting micro-profile of Suckling:]
The New Yorker has dubbed Suckling’s organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, “the most important radical environmental group in the country” and Suckling a “trickster, philosopher, publicity hound, master strategist, and unapologetic pain in the ass.” The LA Weekly calls the Center “pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the most effective conservation organization in the country,” and says of Suckling: “Rimbaud reinvented poetry. Kierán Suckling would do the same with environmentalism.” (Animal Law Conference: Kierán Suckling; Lewis and Clark Law School)
The New Yorker has dubbed Suckling’s organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, “the most important radical environmental group in the country” and Suckling a “trickster, philosopher, publicity hound, master strategist, and unapologetic pain in the ass.” The LA Weekly calls the Center “pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the most effective conservation organization in the country,” and says of Suckling: “Rimbaud reinvented poetry. Kierán Suckling would do the same with environmentalism.”
Mr. President: 5 Ways to Salvage Your Environmental Legacy (and Our Future)
The climate crisis is deepening, rare plants and animals are vanishing at an accelerating clip, and politicians — well supported by the polluter class — are freshly emboldened to chip away at laws that protect our water, air, environment and wildlife.
To be blunt, when it came to tackling the most important environmental issues of our age, President Obama’s first term was a disappointment. He has a chance to salvage his legacy (and ours) in his second term. Here are the five places to start:
1. Address climate change and ocean acidification. …
2. Stem the extinction crisis. …
3. Keep politics out of the Endangered Species Act and other vital environmental laws. …
4. Safeguard our public lands, wild places and the Arctic. …
5. Embrace a newer, cleaner energy. …
It’s time to reinvent our energy future by focusing on renewable sources of energy, including solar, geothermal and wind. Yes, these come with complications, and we’ve got to be smart about how we make the shift, but it can and must be done. There’s a smarter, saner way to move ahead, and that path is open to us. All we need now is the courage and political will to step onto it. (Mr. President: 5 Ways to Salvage Your Environmental Legacy (and Our Future)); By Kieran Suckling; HuffPost Green; 11/7/12 01:12 am ET – updated 1/6/13)
Suckling points out that he wants more of the Federal Lands Locked up and Obama has already locked up 265 million acres so the courts need to be asked HOW MUCH More before we cause a Major Disruption in Food Supplies Worldwide that causes People to become Chaotic and that Chaos interrupts the sustaining of Habitat????
Obama’s designations total 265 million acres, and he isn’t done yet:
As the presidential election heats up, ask yourself which candidate will repeal WOTUS, get control of the EPA and allow ranchers to get back to work without being held back by unfair regulations.
Don’t hold your breath for any of them to “repeal WOTUS” etc. There is not a dime’s worth of difference in any of them. They are all under the influence of radical environmentalism (because it is PC and being PC is necessary to get elected).
But, at least it is encouraging to see a main-stream rag like Beef Magazine is finally beginning to pay attention to what is going on in the (about to get really) Wild West. — jtl, 419
I don’t know about you, but in my opinion, the 2016 presidential election can’t come soon enough.
For the 22nd time during his nearly eight years in office, President Obama has taken advantage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, locking up millions of acres of land in the western states.
Obama’s designations total 265 million acres, and his most recent designation of the Sand to Snow National Monument, Mojave Trails National Monument and Castle Mountains National Monument totals 1.8 million acres.
With several months left in office, Obama is expected to designate another 10 million acres of land in Oregon, Arizona and Utah. What’s worse, Obama will more than likely continue to use his executive power when making these designations without … READ THE REST (Ranchers losing ground in government land grab; By Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily; Land & Livestock International, Inc.; 2/29/16)
And besides the use of Monumenting lands, the Sue and Settle tactic has been deemed Undemocratic:
[Blog Editor: Either go to the above link or read the same link summary in the post "More on why we are where we are with Tyranny Today in America”. The “Sue and Settle tactic” is the topic.]
And Suckling says he wants Radical transformation:
[Blog Editor: The link summary is above in this post.]
So is he willing to cause people to become Chaotic????? Did his actions cause people like Hammonds, Bundys and Finicum to act out the ways in which they did or were made to be seen as such???????
4. [Blog Editor: This looks like a quote but I’m not sure where Newbill found it.] Safeguard our public lands, wild places and the Arctic. There are nearly 650 million acres of federal land in the United States.
But not all of those 650 acres of Federal Lands is Grazing production for food, as this link points out. So we need to start considering how much of an Impact has Environmentalist Land Grabs affected our sustainable food supplies, because we don’t know to what extent these same NGOs have affected other food producing areas around the world too????
Rangelands are grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, wetlands, and deserts that are grazed by domestic livestock or wild animals. Types of rangelands include tallgrass and shortgrass prairies, desert grasslands and shrublands, woodlands, savannas, chaparrals, steppes, and tundras. Rangelands do not include forests lacking grazable understory vegetation, barren desert, farmland, or land covered by solid rock, concrete and/or glaciers.
Rangelands are distinguished from pasture lands because they grow primarily native vegetation, rather than plants established by humans. Rangelands are also managed principally with practices such as managed livestock grazing and prescribed fire rather than more intensive agricultural practices of seeding, irrigation, and the use of fertilizers.
Fire is also an important regulator of range vegetation, whether set by humans or resulting from lightning. Fires tend to reduce the abundance of woody plants and promote herbaceous plants including grasses, forbs, and grass-like plants. The suppression or reduction of periodic wildfires from desert shrublands, savannas, or woodlands frequently invites the dominance of trees and shrubs to the near exclusion of grasses and forbs.
… READ ENTIRETY (Rangeland; Wikipedia; page last modified 2/24/16 22:02)
And don’t forget the Dead Harvest Video, it’s a glowing example of yet more reasons to consider if we are reaching a food supply crisis:
Posted by Gar Tootelian
And this guy wants a Great Disruption, I wonder how many others in the Environmental community want this too???
[Blog Editor: The above link begins with a Paul Gilding 2-minute CNN video I’m not embedding about Enviro-Marxist spiel in forcing people to take care of the environment for the good of planet, then comes the CNN article.]
For 50 years the environmental movement has unsuccessfully argued that we should save the planet for moral reasons, that there were more important things than money. Ironically, it now seems it will be money -- through the economic impact of climate change and resource constraint -- that will motivate the sweeping changes necessary to avert catastrophe.
The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50% more Earth than we've got.
… Chinese Environment Minister Zhou Shengxian said last year, "The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the worsening ecological environment have become bottlenecks and grave impediments to (our) economic and social development." If I had said that in the '90s, when I was the global head of Greenpeace, it would have been dismissed as doom-and-gloom extremism!
As a result, the crisis will be big, it will be soon, and it will be economic, not environmental. The fact is the planet will take further bludgeoning, further depleting its capital, but the economy cannot -- so we'll respond not because the environment is under great threat, but because the science and economics shows that something far more important to us is jeopardized -- economic growth.
So when this crisis hits, will we respond or will we simply slide into collapse? Crisis elicits a powerful human response, whether it be personal health, natural disaster, corporate crisis or national threat. Previously immovable barriers to change quickly disappear.
In this case, the crisis will be global and will manifest as the end of economic growth, thereby striking at the very heart of our model of human progress. While that will make the task of ending denial harder, it also means what's at risk is, quite simply, everything we hold to be important. The last time this happened was World War II, and our response to that is illustrative of both the denial and delay process and the likely form our response to this crisis will take.
Do you find this hard to imagine today? Then try to imagine the alternative -- that in a collapsing global economy and society we will stand by and simply watch the slide. There is no precedent in modern history on which to base that conclusion and plenty of evidence for the alternative. Humanity may be slow, but we are not stupid. Get ready for the great disruption. … You can READ ENTIRETY, but trust me it’s propaganda to get the normal person living a life to accept harsh State control of government, production, population and our lives. (The Earth is full; By Paul Gilding; CNN; 4/8/12 Updated 9:39 AM ET)
I have more examples of these kinds of things, but hey do we know what we are really up against here????
Edited by John R. Houk
All text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.
© Tony Newbill